Proposing the revised motion the Archbishop of Dublin said he appreciated the willingness of Synod to deal with the topic of Human Sexuality in the Context of Christian Belief. He apologised to those who felt that the original motion was “bounced” on them just days before Synod saying this was simply due to pressure of time and was not intended to cause hurt or insult.
The Archbishop explained that the term ”˜normative’ was used theologically in the motion “to give voice to God’s perfect loving will for, in and through the creation”. “Normative is not used in any such way as to make anyone: abnormal, in the context of human sexuality or of anything else,” he stated.
Explaining the terminology of the resolution the Archbishop said the term sexual intercourse was necessary because: “It is a term which has a legally defined meaning, and it complements and sheds light on the term: chastity which is to be found in the Catechism. That is why it has to be used here, reticent though anyone might be about it”.
There’s good and bad in the report of this discussion. Three paragraphs jumped out.
[blockquote]The Archbishop explained that the term ‘normative’ was used theologically in the motion “to give voice to God’s perfect loving will for, in and through the creationâ€. “Normative is not used in any such way as to make anyone: abnormal, in the context of human sexuality or of anything else,†he stated.[/blockquote]
I think that’s just weasel words. If you are saying something is normative, then you are saying that anything different is abnormal. If you don’t think anything in the context of human sexuality (or anything else) is abnormal, then ‘normative’ is not the word you should be using. If normative is the right word, then accept that you are being very politically incorrect and find a way to say that anything else is abnormal.
[blockquote]Explaining the terminology of the resolution the Archbishop said the term sexual intercourse was necessary because: “It is a term which has a legally defined meaning, and it complements and sheds light on the term: chastity which is to be found in the Catechism. That is why it has to be used here, reticent though anyone might be about itâ€.[/blockquote]
This is the opposite of the previous paragraph. Clear thinking about how to communicate precisely and accurately what you [i]are[/i] and [i]are not[/i] saying and why. Relating your statement back to legal definitions and a catechism is even more substantial – it helps ground your statement and ensures that those terms in those locations don’t get redefined in the debate. If you’ve got weighty documents in your tradition, use them – it keeps them alive and involved.
[blockquote]He said if he had to focus on one phrase of the motion, it would be ‘safe place’. “If this motion is all about creating a ‘safe place’, then the church needs to be experienced as a welcoming environment for people with same–sex attraction, indeed a welcoming environment for all who seek to learn and love the way of Christ. The motion recognises that this has not always been so, and sets a standard for the future,†he said.[/blockquote]
Under God, we are going to lose if we keep saying things like this, in my opinion. We don’t speak this way about anything else that, in light of Scripture, we conclude is sin. We don’t bend over backwards to create a safe place for the greedy, the liar, the adulterer, the abusive, the idolater or the like. We don’t apologise to them for not having made church safe enough for them. If we keep singling this one sin out as a special case that needs to be handled differently, then we help create the metacommunication that it really is different from the other behaviours, which in time will make it hard to keep thinking it is sin.
“If we keep singling this one sin out as a special case that needs to be handled differently, then we help create the metacommunication that it really is different from the other behaviours, which in time will make it hard to keep thinking it is sin.”
I think that this is the point.
#1 Mark Baddeley says:
Well, I’m not a conservative or reasserting or (by T19 standards) orthodox Christian, of course, but I’m assuming that the ordinary answer to this would be that the reasserting churches would say that they “create a safe place” for people tempted by greed, lying, adultery, abuse, idolatry, or homosexuality, while still condemning the sins themselves. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Right?
If so, then it appears that the message is not getting out. I quote from Rachel Held Evans’ blog:
Regardless of what your actual stance is, the perception that reasserting churches are creating is that they hate gay people… and that perception, true or false, is hurting you.
What do you propose to do about that?
Hi Ross,
I don’t think there’s an easy solution – that’s one reason why I think people keep taking the strategy I quoted and you’re querying. I have a few thoughts however about the issues you’ve raised.
First, there seems to be a number of studies that indicate that once an accusation gets out into the culture, then responding to it, even demonstrating that it is false, only lodges it into people’s minds more – people remember the charge, not the refutation. I think that’s why so much cultural engagement is offensive rather than defensive – putting an impression about the other side into people’s heads is more useful than trying to correct impressions about your side.
So continuing to say that we’re not homophobes only confirms people’s views that we are, they don’t hear the protestation, they hear the accusation behind the protestation to which we are responding. The better strategy is simply to not be homophobes. To treat same gender sexual behaviour the way we do all other sins. And to treat arguments that it is not sin the way we do other sins our societies try to turn into virtues. It’s counter-intuitive, but by treating this like any other sin, and not giving it all the extra qualifications, we’d send off a clearer meta-communication that would undercut the accusation, in my opinion.
Second, perceptions of this nature break down most naturally by actual contact with real people. Progressives learned that long ago. Perceptions not based in reality are prejudice and prejudice amongst adults tends to break down through contact with people in the group you are prejudiced against. People’s perceptions of Christians and churches will be affected by what they experience when they come into contact with them, not so much by trying to get a message out through the screen of the mainstream media. Just be people who genuinely love the sinner and hate their sin, and people will find their stereotype struggling to interpret their experience. And it’ll be much more attractive than secular and progressive tendencies to only love people who haven’t committed any ‘really serious’ (by their lights) sins.
Third, a common mistake is to base one’s strategy simply around the weaknesses in one’s position. Liberalism has been trying that strategy since the Enlightenment – trying to close the gap with the cultured despisers of the gospel by removing the things that offend them and give them a negative impression of the gospel, so that its positive content can be received. It’s been one long death spiral. The cultural elites think less badly of Christian liberalism than more orthodox strains, but they don’t join, and its track record in keeping and attracting young people is even worse than conservative churches.
In these things you have to stand for something. In this world standing for something, whatever it is, will require you to stand against other things opposed to the thing you stand for. People will always react badly to what it is you are opposed to. But those negative things are connected to the positive thing, you can’t have one without the other. And a strong stance for the positive seems to be more likely to produce healthier, younger, and growing (or decreasing much less slowly) churches than the liberal approach.
Fourth, forms of Christianity that are not trying to accommodate contemporary culture always have negative impressions associated with them once the culture ceases to be openly allied to Christianity (as happened in the West a long time ago). But the negative impression changes over time and is rarely on a battlefield of the Church’s choosing. Today, it is homosexuality, which is hardly an issue the church chose and brought to society. But this probably won’t be the Only Thing That Matters For Progressives in fifty years, however this debate plays out.
Last century in Australia it was Aboriginal rights – the history of the nineteenth century was pockets of Christian churches effectively reaching out to Aborigines with the gospel, then trying to stop them being killed or mistreated by settlers, and then the mission being closed by the civil authorities for its disruption of Australian settlement. Those churches that stood for Aborigines against the views of secular, progressive leaders (and majority opinion) neither won the debate, nor won any favours for their stance. It generated negative opinions. One minister was taken to court by one of our leading progressive newspapers for claiming that Aborigines were human beings. But come back a century, and the accusation is that churches didn’t do enough to oppose the attitudes and behaviour of that time.
Widespread negative opinions in the present matter. But it isn’t the whole story. The church is playing a longer game and has to put the decisive weight on the founding documents (Scripture) and has to think about the legacy when the culture changes again and the church’s alignment with cultural views in the present will be used against its great grandchildren in the future.
It’d be good if we could find a way to defuse at least some of that negative impression. But if we can’t, I think we need to take the hit in the present for the sake of the future. Orthodox doctrine isn’t going to survive this level of revision of orthodox sexual ethics. The connection between doctrine and ethics is too close for Christianity.
Let’s try this. Imagine it’s the third century AD:
“The perception that churches are creating is that they hate pagan people..and that perception, true or false, hurts them”.
What did the church do about it?
RE: “Regardless of what your actual stance is, the perception that reasserting churches are creating is that they hate gay people… and that perception, true or false, is hurting you.”
Actually . . . first of all you’d have to accept polling/surveys as gospel truth and as recent events have demonstrated yet again . . . [heh] . . . they’re not.
Second, even if one accepted the Barna survey as 100% accurate, one would then have to examine the way the questions were asked — and somehow I have a sneaking suspicion they were asked in order to get what Barna wanted.
Third, one would have to more closely define “antihomosexual” which certainly doesn’t always mean even in the users’ minds “they hate gay people.”
As to the question [from the man who doesn’t share the same Gospel as the conservatives he’s interrogating] . . . Great answer driver8.
Oh yes, I forgot. [i]Awesome news[/i] about the Church of Ireland Synod motion!
Kirk and Madsen (one of them posthumously) must be smiling. Even while one synod votes to uphold the Bible’s (correct) sexual morality, many within the church and multitudes without are deceived by the successful strategy of [i]After the Ball[/i].
Proclaiming the Good News has always involved the proclamation of the bad news of human sinfulness, Ross. People have continued that proclamation despite dungeon, fire and sword, machine gun and machete. The “not liked, it’s hurting you” meme is not going to change the Gospel or its proclamation.
On the other hand, how many thieves and adulterers and covetous and dishonoring of parents and all the other sinners continue to go to church to learn how they should behave rather than to have their sin blessed? Like the question on passing the graveyard – “how many dead people are in there?” – the answer, “all of them”. Why a particular sexual sin should get special exemption from reality is beyond me, no matter how popular it may be culturally.